Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: this returns the contractual manifest, including pricing, data-handling declarations, evidence, and provenance, and it is what the receipt binds to. It does not discuss failure modes or pagination, but the added behavioral context is substantial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences with the resource and contents front-loaded, followed immediately by the action guidance. The dense enumeration is purposeful rather than wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description thoroughly lists what the manifest contains and explains its role as the contract bound to receipts. With only one parameter and rich annotations, little else is needed, though it does not describe error behavior or manifest structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single capability_id parameter is already documented with an example. The description only implies that the ID selects one capability, adding little beyond the schema itself.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb, "Retrieve," and a precise resource, the "full TRACE Manifest for one capability," then enumerates the manifest contents. This clearly distinguishes it from search and invocation siblings such as search_capabilities and invoke_capability.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance: call this on search finalists before quoting or invoking. The alternatives are implied through those actions, but no explicit when-not-to-use case or sibling tool name is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.